tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post2552126360178807484..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Stream of consciousnessPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger197125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69837259116649828792009-07-15T21:26:36.758-07:002009-07-15T21:26:36.758-07:00The gospel message of Jesus Christ is variously de...The gospel message of Jesus Christ is variously described in the NT as the story of Jesus Christ and the message he lived, taught and preached. It relates to Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom (Mt 4:23) and its implications for the poor, imprisoned and oppressed (Lk 4:18). It also refers to Jesus’ life in general (Mk 1:1), and Paul’s summation of Jesus’ life and work in his death, burial and resurrection (1 Cor 15:1-4). <br /><br />Given this varied depiction of “the gospel” in the NT, the message of the Gospel can be conveyed by telling the story of Jesus (using the Gospel narratives) just as faithfully as when using a more Pauline approach (i.e. 1 Cor 15). The tradition of Christian preaching has been mostly to prefer the Pauline formula of the Gospel, kind of like a distillation of Jesus’ life and teaching. It has been thought that the highlights of Jesus’ work have to do with the most explicit items related to redemption (the cross and the resurrection). But is someone not preaching the gospel if they fail to mention these two items? Isn’t there more to Jesus than these most explicit components of the faith? Traditional preaching insists on sermons designed in such a way that scriptural topics or passages must somehow converge on the death and resurrection of Jesus, even if it stretches the text. This seems to me a theological straightjacket that can distort the gospel message. <br /><br />Our Christian language can also hinder the message of the gospel. If we are constrained by using words like “confession” and “repentance” when we talk to non-Christians, then we are giving too much sanctity to King James English and our own tradition of using such words, instead of the meanings of these words as the Holy Spirit breathed them. Why shouldn’t we instead prefer other English words to express greater meaning to the audience of today? While maintaining the meaning of the original language as best we can, we should hold the original meaning in tension with an eagerness to communicate it in new ways to new audiences. Isn’t refusing to change the language today sort of like the Roman Catholic Church resisting translation of the Bible into the vernacular during the Reformation? The unfortunate fact is that many non-Christians have an aversion to words like “confession” and “repentance” because of how these words have been misused by Christians to persecute nonconformists (i.e. the Inquisition). Why should we assume their rejection of our message is due to anything else but the negative connotations surrounding these words? If we truly claim to lovingly speak the truth without quarreling about words (2 Tim 2), I don’t think we can assume such things until we try using other language to show people how it’s the meaning of these words that is important. Our goal in preaching should be to painstakingly get at the meaning of the Gospel through all scriptural resources; and it’s a message that transcends language. <br /><br />I don’t know much about McManus or his style of preaching, but if your criteria for judging his orthodoxy is his conformity to traditional preaching, then I think you are being too harsh. Additionally, I don’t think the language of “confession,” “repentance,” or other Christian terminology should be the standard of judging the content of a Christian message. The content of the message should be judged, not just by how the message matches up with Paul, but also by its fidelity to the message that Jesus preached and the life he lived.Darren Schlackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01378772661516699229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49071640655711698372008-08-14T01:33:00.000-07:002008-08-14T01:33:00.000-07:00Phil Johnson to Jose Arroyo: "I'm praying for His...<B>Phil Johnson</B> to Jose Arroyo: "<I>I'm praying for His enabling grace in your life.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Amen brother. Jose, I'm reproducing my comment from the Mosaic of Pain blog thread to increase the probability that you read the links which I hope you'll find useful:<BR/><BR/>"This post is for Jose Arroyo. Although your time at Mosaic had its highs and lows, I think the teaching and doctrine at All Saints Pasadena is clearly worse.<BR/><BR/>Just go to this <A HREF="http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/search/" REL="nofollow"> search engine</A> and type in a key word like "All Saints Pasadena" or "Susan Russell" or "Ed Bacon".<BR/><BR/>Also, here's a link that might be helpful for you from an Episcopalian priest who made the journey away from same-sex behavior: <A HREF="http://www.aco.org/listening/book_resources/docs/Bergner%20Listeing%20Process%20Contribution.pdf" REL="nofollow"> Pastoral Considerations For Homosexuality. </A><BR/><BR/>Here's their website: <A HREF="http://74.1.174.242/redeemedlives/index.asp" REL="nofollow"> Redeemed Lives.</A><BR/><BR/>Peace and blessings."Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80347093245751482992008-08-14T00:08:00.000-07:002008-08-14T00:08:00.000-07:00"But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for th..."But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ."<BR/><BR/>The hardest thing that we have to do is to repent. Who is it that does not have "beloved sins"? Paul instructs as did the Lord that this life we have in the flesh, no matter how good, or how bad, must be brought under subjection to Christ. We are without excuse then when we defend our ownership of ourselves, for we are his to do with as he wills. But, what is there that we want to hold on to? If in this life only we have hope then we are the most miserable of creatures for this life holds only death. It is for freedom that we have been called forth from bondage, should we then bind ourselves through our own desires? By the Word of truth we have been set free, by the Word of truth we have been sanctified. Should we then deny the truth which was spoken to us? Without holiness no man will see God, then we should shed all that this life promises. What Paul says is that he did not deserve such a great gift as salvation and surely not apostleship. He could not remove the past as one who persecuted the church and put death the saints. That he would always be, but he did not grant himself the freedom to live as he was. Instead he counted all things as lost, indeed he counted all that he was as worthless including all the good for that one prize. He "beat black and blue" his body into submission, 1 Corinthians 9:27 (I wish that I could say that). What does it take to lay down our lives for a friend in that way? It takes the greatest love and as Phil has said that is impossible for us. However God shows us his love in that while we are yet sinners Christ died for us and no greater love has any man than that. It is not that we love him first, not even that we are capable of love toward him at all, but by shear mercy he has shed abroad the love of God in our hearts. That love seeks what Paul so eloquently states, to gain Christ, to put him on, to become as he is, the Righteousness of God revealed from heaven. That is our goal. It is not to hold on to sin as if it were more precious than Christ, not even to hold on to our lives as if they were precious in any measure. No, as Paul, we must count all things lost to gain Christ. Christ will not receive our persons. It is not correct that God accepts us just the way we are. He sent Son to destroy the works of the flesh, all of them. He hates what we are and demands that we hate what we are too, black and blue. Repentance is hard for us, for we love ourselves and unless God gives us his love for him we cannot turn away from our sins. What are we to do? Pray, pray, pray, and know that God's grace is sufficient even in our weaknesses, to humble ourselves and he will lift us up. But we do not look back. We look above and not below -to our heavenly dwelling and not the earthly- and stretch toward that mark, the high calling which is found in Christ Jesus. But, God forbid that we preach any message that would encourage us to remain earthbound.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-52941404846756672682008-08-13T23:09:00.000-07:002008-08-13T23:09:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3985042856830650002008-08-13T21:58:00.000-07:002008-08-13T21:58:00.000-07:00Jose:I won't do what you complained Erwin McManus ...<B>Jose:</B><BR/><BR/>I won't do what you complained Erwin McManus did and be evasive about my convictions. I believe Scripture is absolutely, unmistakably clear: homosexuality is sinful, and an unrepentant lifestyle of that or any other willful sin demonstrates an unregenerate heart (1 Corinthians 6:9). If taking Scripture at face value seems "arrogant" to you, imagine <I>God's</I> perspective on those who purposely twist Scripture and explain away clear biblical texts in order to accommodate their favorite sins.<BR/><BR/>I am sympathetic with your feeling of betrayal, because from your testimony it seems you were deliberately misled by people who knew better. But if you're saying the maintenance of your homosexual lifestyle is more important to you than Christ, and that you would never have been part of any church that you knew believed such a lifestyle is sinful, I fear you have merely been inoculated by a false gospel when what you desperately need is to be transformed by the truth of Christ.<BR/><BR/>I say that without rancor or hostility and with nothing but compassion for your situation. But it would not be true compassion to encourage you to continue in a lifestyle the Bible says you need to repent of.<BR/><BR/>In fact it would be the supreme arrogance, and an act of spiritual treachery, for me to tell you you needn't worry about a sin Scripture says damns those who practice it.<BR/><BR/>I do understand how difficult--impossible, really--it is to submit to Christ's demand that we relinquish beloved sins. Everyone who truly comes to Christ struggles with that. I'm praying for His enabling grace in your life.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54952207100640152572008-08-13T16:50:00.000-07:002008-08-13T16:50:00.000-07:00Thanks Greg:What I hear in this--and I'm so tired ...Thanks Greg:<BR/><BR/>What I hear in this--and I'm so tired of hearing the same ol' with varying points of emphasis--is an apology for God He does not require. It is a rotton form of apologetics, for issues the bible does not give liberty to answer the way they usually are, by people who are incapable of delivering a good apolgetic to a legitimate issue/doctrine. <BR/><BR/>In a church we once attended, I sat through the worst sermon I've ever heard as I heard this spineless pastor give one of these messy apologetics in defense of Paul's supposed misogyny. As he plowed deeper and deeper into the mire, you'd think Paul was actually saying women were always intended to be pastors (can't you see that??) Well, he got the feminist vote that day...and we left.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55120479166181339952008-08-13T16:17:00.000-07:002008-08-13T16:17:00.000-07:00I came across your article after it was linked on ...I came across your article after it was linked on the Mosaic of Pain site. Reading your comment on Erwin McManus, I have to say that I agree with everything. After all, the man is a narcissist, egocentric, chameleon who likes to re-name himself with a new title every 15 minutes. Imagine my surprise then to come across your implication made that I, myself am proof of his false fruits:<BR/><BR/>"...someone linked the "Interview with Jose Arroyo," which makes the point rather vividly that sometimes "conversions" are false conversions--and if Mr. Arroyo's description of how he was dealt with at Mosaic is anywhere close to typical, even McManus's idea of "talking with people about Jesus" is deficient. "Talking with people about Jesus" when you don't actually give the gospel will always breed false disciples."<BR/><BR/>You are the type that gives Christians a bad rep, so sure of yourself that you can proclaim who has Christ in their lives, and who doesn't. Now, who is the pretentious one?Jose Arroyohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00507625501401953949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82436111729896807292008-08-13T14:00:00.000-07:002008-08-13T14:00:00.000-07:00Wow... Greg, thanks for that snippet.It's funny, b...Wow... Greg, thanks for that snippet.<BR/><BR/>It's funny, because if you listen to only the last part of the message, where all he really does is quote a bunch of Scripture (even though his commentary is lacking in many areas), you kinda get the idea, "Hmm... if this guy reads this much Scripture, he's probably just lost as to how to interpret it."<BR/><BR/>But when I read stuff like what you transcribed, I feel the need to take my "no deceiver of the brethren" remark off the table. I can buy that Arminians are true Christians, though misguided and untaught. What I can't buy is a genuine believer repudiating sovereign grace, which is the Gospel itself. (Click <A HREF="http://biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/elect.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>, do a search for "nickname".)Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57852078045944076382008-08-13T13:12:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:12:00.000-07:00What I'm hearing, Greg, is that it's still all abo...What I'm hearing, Greg, is that it's still all about him. That Adam-born lust for autonomy that the Cross is supposed to nail hasn't yet let go of the scepter.<BR/><BR/>F. F. Bruce (no pillar of orthodoxy) said well, "When someone says 'I can't believe in a God who ___,' he is telling us something about himself, and nothing about God."DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68314190108716982242008-08-13T13:11:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:11:00.000-07:00I have heard Mosaic Christians say things like &qu...I have heard Mosaic Christians say things like "Jesus would love to come to earth to wash our feet. Of course referring to the Last Supper.<BR/>Man, does that drive me nuts.<BR/><BR/>How about if Jesus came here, He may just bring a whip, and star turning over our desks, and throwing our computers out a window.<BR/><BR/>There seems to be this nice guy theology, that of course is true, for Jesus is loving and kind, and gracious. But he is an angry Lamb of God as well, against all falsehood, and sin. Rev. 2&3<BR/><BR/>I believe the Christian needs to exaime whether He sincerely loves Christ jesus, and loves His Word. These two can not be seperated. The Spirit bears witness to our Spirit.<BR/>"Man shall live by every Word of God". The Word of God is more important than turning a stone into bread, so that one can eat after fasting for 40 days.<BR/>That's mighty important, and essential.<BR/><BR/>McManus seems to neglect God's Word; or takes it lightly.<BR/><BR/>He may be a wonderful Christian, but perhaps he needs to step out of the pulpit. Especially if he isn't teaching and preaching the Bible.<BR/>My three cents, or maybe four.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51336489124396281342008-08-13T13:01:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:01:00.000-07:00Hear McManus compare Calvinism to humanism, univer...Hear McManus compare Calvinism to humanism, universalism, and Buddhism:<BR/><BR/><I>You have to choose between legalism and love, and fatalism and freedom. Myself, I cannot move towards any belief system that in the end says everything is fatalistic, everything is predetermined, and there’s nothing you can do about it as a human being.<BR/><BR/>And in the end, humanism leads you there. You’re just dust. You die. It’s over. You have no control; no way of changing that. <BR/><BR/>Universalism says no matter what you believe it all leads to the same place, so don’t even sweat it. It just goes to the same place. It’s all predetermined. <BR/><BR/>Buddhism says it’s all just a cycle. It’s not going anywhere. <BR/><BR/>By the way, Calvinism says it doesn’t matter, in the end, what you choose, because God has already chosen who belongs to Him and who is damned. <BR/><BR/>And they are all the same—all those different religions. They are fatalistic—that everything is already predetermined. <BR/><BR/>And what the Scriptures tell us is that God allows a freedom to choose, because freedom is required for love to thrive.</I><BR/><BR/>(about 2/3 of the way through the sermon)greglonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14984872599075546502008-08-13T10:08:00.000-07:002008-08-13T10:08:00.000-07:00Hello Phil and fellow servants,I ran across this e...Hello Phil and fellow servants,<BR/><BR/>I ran across this entry last night. I happen to be a former Mosaic member and have written some articles on Erwin's theology, including some analyses of his sermons. Phil, Erwin has a sermon entitled, "Is God in Your Future?" where he also completely misrepresents Calvinism. Here is my analysis, if interested:<BR/><BR/>http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2137/Brannon-Howse/Ron-Foster<BR/><BR/>My blog, www.vain-hopes.blogspot.com also have articles regarding McManus's theology. Here is the link for the group of articles for anyone interested:<BR/><BR/>http://vain-hopes.blogspot.com/search/label/Erwin%20McManus<BR/><BR/>Blessings to you all,<BR/>Ron FosterRon Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02771935148022036641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21799537141705734492008-08-13T09:54:00.000-07:002008-08-13T09:54:00.000-07:00I found it! Someone even more pretentious than Erw...I found it! Someone even more pretentious than Erwin McManus! How about a blogger who stands in judgment and condemnation of a Christian brother's ministry? Now that's pretentious!<BR/><BR/>Also, even more cliche than (the often-derivative) contemporary Christian art and music might just be people who are still critiquing the seeker movement and speculating about the Emergent "fad" (if you can call Evangelicals finally re-discovering the Early Church Fathers, 1800 years of liturgy and the church calendar a "fad"). Like boy bands, Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs, and the heroism of Rudy Giuliani, the conversation has moved on, kids.robert c. pelfreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16188909995562407366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89842661526571054742008-08-13T08:08:00.000-07:002008-08-13T08:08:00.000-07:00Dustin:I listened to the .mp3 twice, and I'm going...<B>Dustin:</B><BR/><BR/>I listened to the .mp3 twice, and I'm going to listen to it again today on the airplane just to make sure I didn't miss anything.<BR/><BR/>But you could hardly have chosen a more fitting message to illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out. It's one of the few McManus messages I've heard where he specifically discusses the gospel (or an aspect of it) rather than some other topic.<BR/><BR/>However, his treatment wouldn't even qualify for "pre-evangelism" in my view because of the number of issues he confused and truths he completely butchered. For example, he totally contradicted himself regarding the sovereignty of God, equating Calvinism with fatalism in one place and completely dismissing it, extolling "free will" in almost pelagian terms--and then at the end suggesting that "God chose" where you would be born and live, etc.<BR/><BR/>Worse, he said nothing to explain the cross or the principle of atonement for sin. He mentioned "sin" a couple of times but treated it as something that happens to us rather than something we are guilty of. He mentions guilt only as a feeling and seems to suggest it's a <I>mistaken</I> feeling.<BR/><BR/>He kept saying that Christ "came for you," but never explains what that means: that He came to die for others' sins--as an atonement, not merely an example of self-sacrifice to follow. McManus makes the problem of sin sound like it's bad only because it keeps <I><B>us</B></I> from loving God, not because God himself hates it and is angry at sinners.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, perhaps if time permits I'll do a thorough analysis of the message, but for now I'll just say that it thoroughly epitomizes what I'm talking about here, and anyone who can listen to it and think it's an adequate presentation of gospel truth needs to get his head out of trendy Emergent books and take some serious time to study what the gospel really is.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73663715436516809122008-08-13T05:31:00.000-07:002008-08-13T05:31:00.000-07:00When the dust settles what remains is whether we p...When the dust settles what remains is whether we preach the Gospel or not. <BR/><BR/>Dustin, the mp3 I listened to did not contain the Gospel. As I said before it may qualify as "pre-evangelism." Your definition of the Gospel earlier in this string was fine. It wasn't preached in the sermon I listened to.<BR/><BR/>And, this is alarming to me: Where does McManus stand on universalism versus the exclusivity of the Gospel? Universalists say, "Jesus alone" but by that they mean something different. <BR/><BR/>I heard him use the word "exclusive" but it was in an antagonistic way. Did you hear that, Bro?ChiefsSuperfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10522011892003191437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56381906943243597382008-08-12T22:36:00.000-07:002008-08-12T22:36:00.000-07:00"MOPmember,I went to the website you referenced an...<I>"MOPmember,<BR/><BR/>I went to the website you referenced and read the interview with Jose Arroyo.<BR/><BR/>IMHO, Jose jumped from the frying pan into the fire by leaving Mosaic and going to All Saints Pasadena, a notorious pro-gay Episcopalian church.</I><BR/><BR/>Truth Unites,<BR/><BR/>Probably very true, but the purpose of MOP is to call out McManus and Mosaic for their past abuses of leadership and extreme emergence. <BR/><BR/>We are praying for Jose and his continuing journey with God.<BR/><BR/>Ironically, based upon his own words, he was practicing celibacy while trying figure some things out at Mosaic. And, it seems they pretty much ran him off to a more liberal church, rather than deal with him. : (MOPmemberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460749959278860811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-174113968779384232008-08-12T22:32:00.000-07:002008-08-12T22:32:00.000-07:00"Dustin: gosh, to be honest Phil, it's clear yo...<I>"Dustin:<BR/><BR/> gosh, to be honest Phil, it's clear you've never been to anything Mosaic has done, not a church service, not the Origins conference, nothing. Watch a few You Tube clips and you're an expert on anything huh?<BR/><BR/> Wow. If you had actually seen anything they did, there is no way you could say that he hasn't done anything "creative". They are incredibly creative and your ignorance shows more than anything else in this post. But that is something many of us already suspected. Thanks for confirming. I'm sure you'll delete this so no one else will know the level of your ignorance though. Again, nice work."</I><BR/><BR/>This is typical Mosaic replyness...<BR/><BR/>As in, "If you really looked closely at the <I>Black Velvet</I> you would see that it is really creative Black Velvet."<BR/><BR/>P.S. Dustin, look it up.MOPmemberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460749959278860811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36574256586559345642008-08-12T20:22:00.000-07:002008-08-12T20:22:00.000-07:00Poly- you've given me a great idea for a post at o...Poly- you've given me a great idea for a post at one of my blogs: Steam of Consciousness.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38692579316766759942008-08-12T20:11:00.000-07:002008-08-12T20:11:00.000-07:00To All Concerned:This post certainly took some twi...To All Concerned:<BR/><BR/>This post certainly took some twists and turns today, and I apologize for the ventures off the beaten path, into the woods, I was responsible for taking (and subsequently leading a few into as well). The lower case thing? I'm not really sure why that bugs me so much (nor my deep-seated problem with that bowing thing I mentioned also), but it was definitely off target and embarrassing quite frankly (I'm sorry Phil). <BR/><BR/>As for the identity question--no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It is simply the fact that the two of you are indeed "kindred spirits," as one of you described yourselves earlier, and the liklihood of such kindredness, especially here, at the same time (in real time) was quite uncanny to be honest. <BR/><BR/>Well, I certainly learned some lessons about keeping wisdom and discernment in my comments from you today, and about keeping my mouth shut long enough to process my thoughts before I type--thank you Dustin and Seth! I mean that with all sincerity! Please forgive me for any statement that hit below the belt. I cannot, however, say that my convictions and/or my thinking have been altered in the least through our exchanges with regard to McManus, Mosaic, Emergent, Postmodernity, or anything of that sortChrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49048230921383764732008-08-12T20:01:00.000-07:002008-08-12T20:01:00.000-07:00Dan: As long as the quiz is at 8 a.m. PT, and not ...Dan: As long as the quiz is at 8 a.m. PT, and not 8 a.m. ET, which would make it 5 in the morning for us poor folks on the West Coast.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15309523920525575452008-08-12T18:44:00.000-07:002008-08-12T18:44:00.000-07:00Wow! What hath McManus wrought? (Apologies to Samu...Wow! What hath McManus wrought? (Apologies to Samuel Morse. And God)<BR/><BR/>I've actually been to a service at Mosaic. I wanted to see what the EC was about. You know what? It was pretty basic. It was actually sort of seeker, but with blue jeans and untucked shirt. Erwin preached from the Bible. I spoke to him afterward, and he said he views the church as Baptist.<BR/><BR/>The "public face" of McManus is therefore, I think, more of a marketing tool. I don't know if it's pretentious or not. Maybe untrusting of the power of the Gospel, as in many a Boomer church. <BR/><BR/>I think that's the thing that gets to me. Methods and jargon over trust in the Gospel.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88442983417835977962008-08-12T18:36:00.000-07:002008-08-12T18:36:00.000-07:00"And Dustin: the Cubs game is rain-delayed. Sorry...."And Dustin: the Cubs game is rain-delayed. Sorry."<BR/><BR/>Dang, I wish I would have checked before I drove across town to watch it. Shoot.Dustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14862095942878672352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35125290468653731262008-08-12T18:14:00.000-07:002008-08-12T18:14:00.000-07:00I got your point, was just having fun. What you sa...I got your point, was just having fun. What you say is true. Many principles of higher criticism we not developed by friends of the faith, yet they are useful nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>I contribute to and will draw from Social Security eventhough it was Mussolini's brain child. Simply because we use tools developed by others shouldn't makes us guilty by association.<BR/><BR/>Like I didn't know that Mel invented vertical file hangers which I've used. I hope no one thinks me anti-Semetic for it.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I used to make the same error in attributing the file system to John.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75119025266563970232008-08-12T18:04:00.000-07:002008-08-12T18:04:00.000-07:00@Strong Tower. Wow. I'm so gonna have ahrsh words ...@Strong Tower. <BR/><BR/>Wow. I'm so gonna have ahrsh words with my Primary school librarian. <BR/><BR/>I stand corrected. <BR/><BR/>I was trying to link a useful tool with disreputable philospher. Dewey did flirt with monism (isn't materialism a subset of monism? If all is matter, that is a monist outlook, is it not?) but as he's not the Dewey decimal dewey, I'll have to find another example.<BR/><BR/>A simialr point could be made with the encyclopaedia and the outlook of Deridot etc... But the point that I was making is that when you read a philosopher/theologian, sometimes the tools that that person uses are more useful in the long run than the conclusions that they come to. You can take logic from socrates or science from aristotle without becoming a disciple of either.christplaysnzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00122957819673524150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37775657199099927302008-08-12T16:31:00.000-07:002008-08-12T16:31:00.000-07:00Correction: The Cubs' game is postponed, not merel...Correction: The Cubs' game is postponed, not merely delayed.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.com